/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13170588]

*singlehandedly BTFOS all other philosophers and proves morality is objective*

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf


Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. No moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.

1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.

2. Man is a living organism.

3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.

4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour.

5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

[Anonymous No.13170600]

jesus christ this guy is such a charlatan, basically a cult leader

[Anonymous No.13170601]

Posting YouTube/podcast/Twitter "thinkers" should be a bannable offense.

[Anonymous No.13170605]

>>13170600
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13170613]

>>13170601
He is the greatest modern day philosopher.

[Anonymous No.13170618]

>>13170601
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13170622]

>>13170605
>>13170618
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13170623]

>>13170605
It's not meant to be one--but if I were to address his argument I'd say that the first premise is rather dubious and can be rejected out of hand and that 5 doesn't follow from 4, nor does 4 follow from anything preceding it.

[Anonymous No.13170628]

>inb4 at least 100 replies of "Not an argument"

[Anonymous No.13170631]

>>13170623
His book has yet to be refuted in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.13170636]

>>13170623
Shut up you retarded wan You're oversimplifying Stefan's argument. read the 134 page pdf before making a response.

[Anonymous No.13170652]

Not sure if troll, but that's not how proof by contradiction works. "My body can't survive without breathing, and UPB is a vague and ill-defined categorization" is not a contradiction.
That's more like "Haha, but the road you drove on to the debate was paved by the government, so any argument you uttet against the government is a contradiction!"
You could define a category of behavior called "Blumpkinning" that includes logical reasoning and also shitting yourself, and argue that any argument against Blumpkinning is invalid because you need to use some form of Blumpkinning to argue.

[Anonymous No.13170653]

>>13170631
You can't refute a book, but you can show that an argument is unsound by showing that one or more of its premises can be rejected, or that its conclusion does not follow from them.
>>13170636
I'm not going to do that, I'm too busy playing WoW, watching Babylon 5, and reading actually relevant theoretical and historical works.

[Anonymous No.13170655]

Circular logic DESTROYS all other philosophers past, present, and future

This guy is a narcissist, megalomaniac, and hypocrite. He does champion some good ideas that others won't though, but it hardly makes him a great thinker.

[Anonymous No.13170658]

>>13170588
MY TOP FIVE REDPILL BOOKS

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, PhD - 12 Rules for Life
Stefan Molyneux, M.A. - Universally Preferable Behavior
Milo Yiannopoulos - Dangerous
Stefan Molyneux, M.A. - The Art of the Argument
Jonah Goldberg - Liberal Fascism
President Donald J. Trump, B.S. - The Art of the Deal

[Anonymous No.13170662]

YOU'RE VIOLATING MY N.A.P.
FUUUCK I BET YOU BEAT (SPANK!) YOUR CHILDREN TOO
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING NAZI FUCK
VOTE FOR TRUMP

[Anonymous No.13170665]

>>13170653
Cringe

>>13170658
>>13170662
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13170666]

>>13170588
Pic related fucking destroys it from point one. Just because something manages to survive doesn't mean it's optimal

[Anonymous No.13170668]

>>13170652
>>13170653
>>13170655
SEE
>>13170658

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about until you actually read these books. At least read Stefans UPB before trying to refute it. Your criticisms have already been disproven in the book.

[Anonymous No.13170673]

>>13170588
Is point 1 fixed then for your argument to be true? Preferred behaviour surely changes over time.

[Anonymous No.13170680]

>>13170666
>>13170673
Not an argument. Read the book

[Anonymous No.13170686]

>>13170673
Man are you people really so fucking tired you can't even open the PDF to see what he defines preferred behaviour as? How do you have the dedication to post a reply without even fucking reading about what it is your replying to?

[Anonymous No.13170690]

>Thus I humbly suggest that you wait to see how effective the ethical framework I propose is at provingthe most commonly accepted moral maxims of mankind before passing final judgment on the theory
lmao is he serious?

[Anonymous No.13170700]

>>13170690
Lmao where is your argument?

[Anonymous No.13170702]

>>13170690
Reserve your judgement until you've finished the book

[Anonymous No.13170709]

>>13170700
>The very act of debating requires an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). There is noway to rationally respond to an ethical argument without exhibiting UPB.
I guess I can't make one without conceding the validity of UPB gee whaddayaknow

[Anonymous No.13170713]

>>13170709
AHAHAHA. Well you've been btfoed

[Anonymous No.13170714]

>>13170709
Conceding your point isn't an argument, but it's very admirable.

[Anonymous No.13170726]

>>13170713
>>13170714
Ha! You fell into the blumbo trap! By saying that The Truth which isn't your stinky fake truth but my real epic truth you've confirmed that I'm right

[Anonymous No.13170727]

>>13170709
I can think of one way

[Anonymous No.13170737]

>>13170588
>>13170605
>>13170636
>>13170668
>>13170680
>>13170702
>27 replies
>12 posters
Moly-nu-male detected. delete your posts and end your life
>inb4 not an argument
yeah and your shilling will never be an argument for me to even look at your shitty 'book'

[Anonymous No.13170744]

>>13170726
Explain your world salad

[Anonymous No.13170748]

>>13170737
>Hurr you're shilling your book

[Anonymous No.13170751]

>>13170727
Killing someone isn't arguing.

[Anonymous No.13170753]

>>13170737
It actually is worth looking at it just for big brain moments like
>The very act of debating requires an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). There is noway to rationally respond to an ethical argument without exhibiting UPB.
and
>Putting aside the challenges of language for the moment, if I point to a seagull and say, “That is an anvil,” I am clearly mistaken, because anvils are inorganic, and cannot fly. The truth value of my statement is measured relative to the objective facts of reality. Since the seagull is not in fact an anvil, my statement is untrue
>Putting aside the challenges of language for the moment
>mfw

[Anonymous No.13170754]

>>13170588
>All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
[Citation needed.]

[Anonymous No.13170755]

>>13170748
Jesus christ

[Anonymous No.13170758]

>>13170751
Nobody was killed, but Wittgenstein proved that most professors of philosophy are fucking pussies, especially ethicists

[Anonymous No.13170761]

>>13170744
Just because you're too dumb to understand me it doesn't mean I'm not right

[Anonymous No.13170762]

>>13170754
Read the PDF

>>13170755
I'm not even OP

[Anonymous No.13170764]

>>13170754
You just quoted the citation friend. Read the book for further detail.

>>13170758
Yes agreed. Not Molyneux though, he's the only one that has stood up against outdated philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13170769]

>>13170744
Why would he? Stefan doesn't explain his. :^)

[Anonymous No.13170770]

>>13170761
>if I type unintelligible garbage and you can't read it that means I'm correct

[Anonymous No.13170771]

>>13170764
>Not Molyneux though, he's the only one that has stood up against outdated philosophy.
don't forget about Our President, who is going to complete the system of German Idealism and #RaiseThule

[Anonymous No.13170777]

>>13170769
>t. Never watched Stefan

[Anonymous No.13170779]

>>13170770
But what about Mr. Molyneux?

[Anonymous No.13170783]

>>13170777
And proud of it. I don't need some bald Jew cultist to give my life purpose and direction.

[Anonymous No.13170792]

>>13170779
See the post above yours

>>13170783
>I'm going to criticize Stefan without watching him

[Anonymous No.13170795]

Yootoobers are cancer

[Anonymous No.13170799]

>>13170795
Not an argument. Not a single on itt. Looks like Stefan is irréfutable

[Anonymous No.13170820]

>>13170792
I read his book and it was just three pages worth of circular reasoning spread out for 117. It's actually kind of impressive how little content the book has.

[Anonymous No.13170829]

>>13170820
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.13170832]

>>13170829
It's linked in OP's post. Read it yourself

[Anonymous No.13170840]

>>13170832
>just believe my retarded take bro
I've read the book. Show me where there is circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.13170852]

>>13170840
Also in OP's post. To be fair though, it isn't JUST circular reasoning. There's tons pointless dithering in there too.

[Anonymous No.13170856]

>>13170601
No, captcha should be a basic logic test.
99% of lit would fail.

[Anonymous No.13170858]

>>13170852
Show me where

[Anonymous No.13170860]

>>13170856
That would be really funny if it wasn't true

[Anonymous No.13170864]

>>13170588
>All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
>universally
Guess I ought to go suck on a thermal vent by that logic.

>2. Man is a living organism.
>Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.
Which living men. A simple genealogical critique refutes this.

>4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour.
>5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.
The logic does not follow.

The guy is a great cult leader though.

[Anonymous No.13170878]

>We can find evidence for preferences; we cannot find preference itself in reality. Preference exists as a
relationship between consciousness and matter, just as gravity exists as a relationship between bodies of
mass.

he tried his best to put plato in the dirt and he still manages to acknowledge ideals rofl

[Anonymous No.13170904]

>>13170600
My opinion of your opinion is false. Ive even studied cult leaders a bit. If anything, he's rubbing against the grain of cult acclaim.

[Anonymous No.13170914]

>1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
This point is so vague that it’s hard to even take him seriously. Does he mean preferred social behavior? Moral behavior? Physical behavior?

(For my next point I’ll assume he means preferred behavior means moral behavior) Let’s say that I’m a homeless man and I want to stab you for $50. If I go to jail then I get 3 meals and a bed, if I get the money than that’s $50 for me; in short, I can’t come out with a bad option if I stab you. For most people their preferred behavior would be to not stab you for $50 but for me as a homeless person it is in my preferred behavior becuase it will affect me positively either way. Therefore the preferred behavior can change and therefore it’s not objective.

[Anonymous No.13170921]

>>13170914
Read. The. Book.

[Anonymous No.13170924]

>>13170914
>This point is so vague that it’s hard to even take him seriously. Does he mean preferred social behavior? Moral behavior? Physical behavior?
He probably explains it in the book. You're not really doing yourself any favors with this post.

[Anonymous No.13170937]

>>13170588
It's a universally preferred behavior that all organisms swim and breath water. Therefore the development of legs, lungs, etc is not valid.

[Anonymous No.13170947]

>>13170921
>>13170924
I’m not reading the goddamn book over a shitpost. If you can’t argue his points then you don’t understand them and you aren’t qualified to post about them

[Anonymous No.13170949]

>>13170914
>>13170921
>>13170924
It would be a lot easier to address his argument if, at some point, there were made available an easily consultable definition of UPB--I tried to find one in the text and it was very difficult. I did find a lot of hifalutin verbiage about how he's fighting for Truth and Objectivity, though.

[Anonymous No.13170957]

>>13170949
That's my main gripe with the book; it has no point.

[Anonymous No.13170962]

>>13170588
If your philosophy can be BTFO in a single image then it's over for you.

[Anonymous No.13170965]

>>13170957

[Anonymous No.13170970]

>>13170957
It does have a point: the edification (deification?) of its author.

[Anonymous No.13170971]

>>13170965
not an argument

[Anonymous No.13171065]

>>13170588
>his argument that the free market has ethics is "you can order salads at mcdonalds"
Kek why does anybody watch this serial idiot
Imagine being a middle aged man and still believing in anarchism

[Anonymous No.13171087]

>>13170601
Ryan Faulk has some good stuff

[Anonymous No.13171097]

>>13171065
ancaps are not anarchists. They are far worse.

[Anonymous No.13171114]

>>13170588
>All organisms require universally preferred behavior to live.
So how do we enforce that on people who dont follow the preferred behaviour? How do we outline this preferred behaviour? With laws and education. How do you enforce laws? With force. How do you standardise education? With a state.
Damn Steven Mobblebum BTFO himself!
You should always spank your kids btw. Violence is the best teacher.

>>13171097
Pic related

[Anonymous No.13171202]

by having masters in philosophy deegree he achived more than 95% of lit anons ,so their only argument is ad hominem

[Anonymous No.13171211]

>>13170962
I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.13171214]

>>13171202
>doesnt know what ad hominem is

[Anonymous No.13171248]

>>13170588
He is definitely your classic stunted euphoric.

[Anonymous No.13171296]

>>13171114
> Oh God I can't fucking wait to have kids and spank their asses despite studies showing they'll grow up to be underdeveloped alcoholics
> But all anarchists are pedos cuz my meme says so

[Anonymous No.13171315]

>>13171296
>Oh God I can't fucking wait to have kids and spank their asses despite studies showing they'll grow up to be underdeveloped alcoholics
Lmao what studies? Pain is a natural teacher. You feel pain when you do something wrong. Put your hand on the stove? Pain. Does that turn you into an alcoholic? Of course not. Retarded argument. Spanking =/= physical abuse.
>But all anarchists are pedos cuz my meme says so
It doesnt say all it just says more
U mad pedo?

[Anonymous No.13171346]

>>13171248
No he is against atheism.

[Anonymous No.13171351]

Dude you haven't listened to Molyneux long enough to know that he DOES NOT SAY UNIVERSALLY PREFERRED BEHAVIOR

He says universally PREFERABLE behavior and he insists there is a STRONG DIFFERENCE between preferred behavior and preferable behavior. If you can't see it you are a brainlet and you are presenting a bad case for his argument

[Anonymous No.13171352]

>>13171346
But he is an atheist

[Anonymous No.13171367]

>>13171351
The points are copied out of the book you absolute MONG.

>>13171352
But not euphoric.

[Anonymous No.13171368]

>>13171367
He's an ancap, thats pretty euphoric

[Anonymous No.13171373]

Leave Stefan Molyneux to me.

[Anonymous No.13171384]

>>13171352
He stopped saying I'm an atheist to appeal to /pol/ christian LARP and trumpers. He even stopped claiming he's an anarchist... instead embracing a more "collectivist" philosophy when he had a spiritual breakthrough and was choked to tears during a pilgrimage to a neo-nazi protest in Poland his true ancestral homeland

I am not even kidding search for the video

[Anonymous No.13171430]

>>13171384
>neonazi
Nah go fuck yourself you're bigger scum than he is

[Anonymous No.13171442]

>>13171367
>not euphoric
hahaha
he claims he was banished from academic philosophy because he's smarter than everyone else and they feel threatened... he's a nutjob who gained notoriety due to the defoo crap he used to promote... but his tone was quickly reduced to "parents against child abuse" after his wife (psychologist) was reprimanded by her department

he also claimed that "the Future of Philosophy relies on your donations!" like he's the one that's going to save the world ... I was a listener of his podcast 10 years ago... he was a different person back then... It's only when I took a step back that I realized I was listening to a confidence artist and it stopped being entertaining

[Anonymous No.13171448]

>>13171430
ok not a neo-nazi. Ethnonationalist whatever

[Anonymous No.13171472]

>>13171315
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768154/

Can you stop your weird projection now and leave the kids alone? Just because I'm an anarchist doesn't mean I won't call CPS on your child-abusing ass. Force is justified to stop greater violence, and that includes abusing kids.

[Anonymous No.13171498]

https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/
https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-2/
https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-3/
https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-4/
https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-5/

[Anonymous No.13171507]

>>13171472
Spanking isnt child abuse you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.13171514]

>>13171448
You could just say polish nationalist rally because that is what it is

[Anonymous No.13171524]

>>13171472
Molyneux sets the bar for "child abuse" so absurdly low that everyone has been abused by their mother according to him... his shtick is asking callers: "how is your relationship with your mother"?
Your mom yelled at you once? Abuse
Your toys were taken away? Abuse
Grounded? Abuse
Didn't spend 4 hours with you every day? Abuse
Lets you watch TV cartoons? Abuse
Made you go to church? Abuse

[Anonymous No.13171531]

>>13171507
Child abuse as a term is subjective. Is whipping the feet abusive? A Westerner might say so, but it is (or was) the norm in some parts of the Arab world. What doesn't appear to be subjective are the deleterious effects on child development. Ignoring moral standards, corporal punishment of any kind is associated with a reduction in grey matter and behaviours like learned helplessness or anti-social personality disorder.

[Anonymous No.13171535]

>>13171472
>Just because I'm an anarchist doesn't mean I won't call CPS
youre not an anarchist then lol

[Anonymous No.13171542]

>>13171531
Its not subjective
Punishing a wrongdoer with pain is justified punishment
Beating your kid for literally no reason is abuse

[Anonymous No.13171546]

>>13170588
First of all, objective =/= universal. Morality is objective, but not universal.

The objective part is that morality itself is a social strategy (a phenomenon of feelings+reason in individuals) which is employed by valuing agents to benefit their collective and consequently themselves (due to reciprocity).

The non-universality is a result of values (preferences) being a product of valuing agents. The specific nature of a valuing agent will shape their specific morality (and capacity for moral reasoning); since valuing agents are not universal (identical), neither can their specific application of morality be universal. There tends to be a good deal of overlap in the most critical preferences of valuing agents (assuming a collective which share similar natures), and this is the basis of morality -- not a universal standard like mathematics.

1. COULD preferences be universal? No, since the nature of preferring agents is not universal.

2. SHOULD certain behaviours be universally preferred? No, since that determination itself is a matter of preferences (which aren't universal).

3. Therefore the notion of universal preference is fallacious from any angle.

[Anonymous No.13171553]

>>13171546
I saved all those spastic moly edits but cant find the folder

[Anonymous No.13171561]

>>13171542
The proportionality of the punishment, and the effects it produces, are important parts of the equation. Discipline is primarily corrective, not retributive. It is meant to produce a good character and curtail bad behaviours. The punishment is not the end in itself, it also serves a pedagogical purpose. To that effect, corporal punishment is not very effective, as it tends to produce worse behaviour and personal success in the long-term.

[Anonymous No.13171592]

>>13171542
Multiple people have given sources showing corporal punishment stunts childrens' mental development but you keep trying to justify it like the facts are gonna change based on your platitudes.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually mean what you say or if you're looking for attention because you were beaten as a child...

[Anonymous No.13171604]

>>13170653
Based!

>>13170668
If the criticisms have been disproven in the book and you understand the book, it should be trivial for you to address the criticisms yourself, in this thread, in a defnitive way. If you can't do this, then how clear is your understanding and what knowledge did you gain from the book?

[Anonymous No.13171605]

>>13170588
I've read the PDF a couple times.
>mentions Hume. Never adequately bridges the is-ought gap.
>mentions determinism vs freewill. Never adequately addresses the issue.

[Anonymous No.13171616]

>>13171531
Any sort of corporal punishment is child abuse. You won't realize this until you see it. My brother still stutters because my dad used to get angry and beat him up because he failed at school. He is 33 now and has grown to become selfish and resentful...
I have 2 sisters: one treats her kids right (punishes them with the silence treatment or withholding rewards).
The other one is a monster always yelling at her kids. One time she yelled at her daughter the kid urinated herself...
Children of my 1st sister are outgoing happy teenagers with doll collectables and pets listening to indie music. They like talking to me, always bring me my favorite food when they visit... they are on the right character developmental path
However, children of my 2nd sister rarely ever visit. The boy developed an anti-social behavior (who is now seeing a speech therapist for it). The girl can't hold real conversations with adults. When I ask her a question she responds like a child, can't maintain eye contact. Stunted self-expression (narrow range of emotions). Gossipy and always backbiting people.

Sorry for the long anecdotal post... but Molyneux is on to something when he says don't abuse your fucking kids

[Anonymous No.13171631]

>>13171616
you might be genetic waste

[Anonymous No.13171645]

"Putting aside the challenging questions of free will versus determinism, it is reasonable to assume that
whatever a person is doing in the present is what he or she “prefers” to do." Page 32.

"If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible
for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not
responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be
exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely
related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)" Pg 36.

Where does he address this?

[Anonymous No.13171677]

>>13170588
> YouTuber
> Libertarian
Fuck off. Why would anyone ever bother with these clowns?

[Anonymous No.13171683]

>>13171631
This will happen to you if you abuse your kids it's a vicious cycle that's hard to break

[Anonymous No.13171693]

>>13170658
if that's the redpill I would rather take the bluepill

[Anonymous No.13171701]

>>13171645
That's stupid reasoning though... If things are deterministic you're still a link in the chain. For all you know your argument may play a siginificant role in shaping someone's future self. We don't know the future -- predetermined or not -- so there's no point in second guessing our interactions.

[Anonymous No.13171774]

" I fully accept the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought.” Valid moral rules cannot be
directly derived from the existence of anything in reality. " Pg 9.

Ok.

[Anonymous No.13171775]

>>13171546
This
There are certain objective moral standards, mostly revolving around behavior that would help/hinder rudimentary social collectives, but the prioritization of certain behavior over another by societies will overtime create conflicting moral theories that do not necessarily invalidate the other

[Anonymous No.13171799]

>>13171592
People dont spank their kids now look at our generation
Bunch of fucking pussies
Back when corporal punishment WAS a thing we have a proper civilisation, with discipline and honour as normal parts of life
Fuck your gay little NAP

[Anonymous No.13171834]

>corporal punishment bad
*ahem*

[Anonymous No.13171837]

Imagine getting your entire life's work dabbed on by a philosophy-shitposting Aussie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bpesC_FPFc

[Anonymous No.13171840]

>>13170588
Let's just assue that there is such a thing as Universally Preferable Behaviour. I would like to ask a few probing questions. Where does behaviour come from?

If behaviour is the result of a conscious decision then surely your behaviour depends on your thoughts, no?

Then you must agree that in order for us to be responsible for our behaviours we must also be responsible for our thoughts.

If we are responsible for our thoughts then we must be in control of our thoughts.

If we are in control of what we think about then we must also be in control of what we do not think about.

Let's test it! If you are in control of your thoughts then your task is to not think of a pink elephant. Whatever you do, do not think of a pink elephant. If you do, then you have just proven that you are not in control of your thoughts and are therefore not responsible for your behaviour.

[Anonymous No.13171845]

>>13171837
Unrelated to the argument but god damn i fucking hate this "aesthetic" vaporwave shit
That trend died years ago

[Anonymous No.13171853]

>>13170588
>universally preferred behaviour
ufufufu, I'll take that bet

[Anonymous No.13171872]

>>13170605
>>13170618
>>13170622
>>13170628
>>13170665
>>13170680
>>13170737
>>13170799
>>13170971
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13171876]

>>13170588
>morality is objective
>morality
Morality isn't a thing, and if anything its subjective destroying its purpose entirely
>Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behavior*.
First off you spelled behavior wrong, and honestly, I don't act in a universally preferred behavior if anything im hated by most and despised by my peers, this is why im here multiple hours a day enjoying me being among other anonymous where i'm able to have a voice without my inability to socialize to restrict me in anyway. But this argument is so vague I don't think i'm hitting anywhere near the target.
>Therefore any argument against universally preferable behavior* requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behavior*.
This is only the case if you subscribe to the previous claim and even if so the only reason people act of universally preferred behavior is because of the moralist traditions that were branded into our minds by the Christians, and even so there are plenty of unorthodox positions not subscribing to some Universally preferred behavior hence Universal.
>Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.
Define Universally preferable behavior and tell me how the last two claims at all relates to its full proof validity, All living men do-not practice a universally preferred behavior, we do-not live the same,we do not eat the same, we do not think the same, we do not have the same standards hence we do not live the same. Everyone lives by their own rules with their own goals, everyone's and egoist

[Anonymous No.13171882]

>>13170858
read the fucking book you retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.13171889]

Claims objective behaviour and at the same denies determinism - big brain indeed

[Anonymous No.13171887]

>>13171202
Fuck off. His book is a fucking shitpost

[Anonymous No.13171895]

>>13171876
i was gonna argue this is an anglo take on the op's question but that just confirms your point

[Anonymous No.13171919]

>>13171840
Tldr

[Anonymous No.13171925]

>>13170658
Based

[Anonymous No.13171934]

>>13170588
Ethical naturalism is retarded.

[Anonymous No.13171969]

This is the reason there is a peer review process.
Moneylux never bothered to learn the craft

[Anonymous No.13171972]

>>13170588
>1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
And it always changes due to changing environmental circumstances and more. Sometimes, many organisms do not prefer to live after certain experiences. There is nothing "universal" to preferred behavior, since even preferences changes.
>2. Man is a living organism.
And an organism is dynamic, much like his environment, circumstances, preferences, and more. There is nothing fixed about this.
>3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.
No. You cannot reduce the reason people are alive to "universally" preferred behavior when I have pointed out there is nothing universal about it. Yes, there are idiosyncrasies about each individual's preferences that have brought them here, but to claim there is universal consensus in that regard is complete bullshit. One person could be alive to spite his enemies, another because he enjoy such and such hobby.
>4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour.
There is universally preferred behavior UNLESS you can point to a supernatural order, and knowing how Molyneux is a naturalist, I doubt he does this. There is literally no teleology in naturalist views of evolution, as most scholars agree. You may argue societal continuance and natalism is at root of a collective's "universally" preferred behavior, but all it takes is finding a couple of exceptions to burst your bubble because you lack any real metaphysical metric.
>5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.
Go fuck yourself, pseudointellectual trash.

[Anonymous No.13171980]

>>13171972
>There is universally preferred behavior UNLESS
There is no* universally preferred behavior UNLESS*
>you can point to a supernatural order,
or some kind of soteriology*

[Anonymous No.13171982]

>>13171972
>is at root
are at root*
ignore typos

[Anonymous No.13172019]

>>13171972
Next time try reading the PDF I linked, near the end he pretty much decimated all the points you made.

[Anonymous No.13172024]

>>13170588
Remember when he brought Chomsky on and Stefan just agreed with everything he said and never made an opposing point even when he laughed in his face and told him he was retarded?

[Anonymous No.13172027]

>>13172019
No. Also, if he relies on genes, then it's bullshit. Experience-dependent neuroplasticity is more important when it comes to forming values, which can be at great odds with one another.

Molyneux is a shit thinker, and you are a clown.

[Anonymous No.13172050]

This fucking guy...

He just throws word salads together and runs a self-help show or something and people treat him like he's the damn Messiah. Any time someone argues with him, he'll just change the definition of half the words he uses to make himself seem in the right no matter how ridiculous the things he says are. Hell, you can literally discard his entire moral theory after 15 seconds of reading by the fact that he misuses the word "universal"

[Anonymous No.13172098]

>>13171876
You're vacillating to an opposite extreme in your disagreement. Reality is more complex/nuanced.

Subjectivity (or more specifically, non-universality) doesn't destroy the purpose of morality, as that purpose is to serve our non-universal natures to the extent they overlap. Morality is both derived from and serves our natures. We're not the same, but there's a lot of overlap. No man is an island -- we've all been shaped in every respect by our collectives. Moral consensus is possible because of the overlap, but moral universality isn't possible because of the divergence of natures (and especially the divergence between genetic collectives where the averaged nature can differ significantly).

All that exists is some-thing, even ideas (as electrochemical patterns, ink on paper, or whatever). There's no such thing as no-thing. Morality as an evopsych social stategy is definitely a thing... If you take a dim view of the degree to which it has been abstracted and formalized, that's a separate issue.

[Anonymous No.13172140]

>>13171972
You didn't disprove UPB.

[Anonymous No.13172146]

>>13172140
There is nothing universal about preferred behavior required to live, since life is very dynamic and always shifting.

[Anonymous No.13172198]

>>13172146
Try not drinking water for a few days.

[Anonymous No.13172210]

>>13172198
In some contexts that may be preferred. It's all contextually-dependent. You cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism no matter how hard you try. It is actually more genuine to be a Christian than a naturalist who believes he can derive an objective morality.

There is nothing in physicalism or naturalism that provides any viable justification for a metal-ethical or normativel ethical scheme.

[Anonymous No.13172230]

How the hell did this stupid thread get so many posts so fast? You people are fucking rats at a pellet tray. How many of you fucking idiots actually care about this moron? Why is he so important to you? I've never watched a single video of his, and based on his Twitter account I never will.

[Anonymous No.13172259]

>>13170588
These things are not universially preferable, but generally. Yes, killing is usually wrong because it's contradictory, i.e. to be a killer you need to avoid getting killed etc. (this is basically just do onto others btw.) but in some cases your survival and thus the ability to continue acting good depends on breaking these rules.

[Anonymous No.13172260]

>>13172210
You can apply the principles of thermodynamics and chemistry to Man. Love is not an abstract. It is grounded.

[Anonymous No.13172263]

>>13172230
He's had a cult following all across the internet for the better part of a decade at this point, most just want him gone. He's an utter tard and it's infuriating that you can't go anywhere without running into his bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13172320]

>>13172259
Can tell you're new here, would refrain from posting until you've browsed for a little bit longer.

[Anonymous No.13172328]

>>13172320
^meant to reply to >>13172230 also

[Anonymous No.13172446]

>>13172050
Your criticism doesn't actually refute any of his points. If you read the book you would see why you're wrong, it doesn't take too long.

[Anonymous No.13172462]

>>13170588
>All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live
What about organisms that suicide? How is that not a btfo?

[Anonymous No.13172465]

I forgot the time even some undergrad poked UBI full of holes. Let's see if I can find it

[Anonymous No.13172468]

>>13172465
story linked here >>13171498

[Anonymous No.13172592]

>>13171384
This. It's extremely obvious hes just chasing whatever will make him the most popular.

[Anonymous No.13172629]

>>13170588
Okay if morality is objective what IS the current moral standard?

[Anonymous No.13172659]

I don't actually know what this guy ever talks about because I get distracted by his angry smile and murderer eyes.

I think one day he's going to say something triggering to Canadian SJWs and get shit on. He will yell in impotent rage feeling stepped on and then later that day he'll murder a hooker.

Calling it.

[Anonymous No.13172675]

>be race realist
>believe in universal man
wtf???

[Anonymous No.13172690]

>>13172230
Good point. Rather than discussion people are simply obsessed with data, even if it's not something they know about or are even interested in.

[Anonymous No.13172696]

>>13170601
With the death penalty

[Anonymous No.13172700]

>>13170588
molymeme is an 80 iq brainlet

[Anonymous No.13172771]

>>13170613
Ahem... That would be Mr. Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.13172803]

>>13172230
Well to be the fucking audacity of these libertarian objectivists is too much to bear. Clearly their logical conclusion of their ideology is amorality, but then they still try to claim moral imperatives. Perfect example found in Moneylux, where he literally tries to invent objective morals

[Anonymous No.13172930]

>>13170588
>"libertarian" ""race"" """realist"""
>youtuber
>"political" ""commentator""
The holy trinity of garbage, no thanks.

[Anonymous No.13173056]

>>13172930
Why does lit have so many cucks like this lately? Ever since /lit/ went viral on /r/books it's been awful.

[Anonymous No.13173107]

>>13171202
I have a masters in philosophy and a bachelors in theology, and I think he's full of shit. Molyneux threads are fucking horrible because there's no discussion and just people spamming "read the book". Imagine if threads about literally any other person devolved into scores of "just read the book dude" posts. If you post a "critique" of his word salad you'll just get three replies telling you "it's refuted in the book". What do these spammers expect from these threads? That we all fall to our knees in prayer to the might Molyneux?

[Anonymous No.13173118]

>>13173107
>I have a masters in philosophy and a bachelors in theology

[Anonymous No.13173148]

>>13173056
Any other epic youtubers you want to share with us on this literature board?
I love to discuss videos and podcasts on the board devoted to reading, especially when it's about some literally who e-celeb who has 0 (zero) relevance outside the Internet.

[Anonymous No.13173262]

>>13173056
>cuck!!!111
Welp, argument won I guess.

[Anonymous No.13173265]

>>13173056
I've been on /lit/ before you had your first shit in your diapers. Post your shitty meme e-celeb """philosophers""" on /pol/ and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.13173267]

>>13173118
But imagine if he's slaying more pussy than you.

[Anonymous No.13173299]

>>13173265
Old people fuck off, this is a board for young swaggers only.

>>13173267
He probably is and it bothers me that you mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.13173343]

>>13170588
>1. All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.

A wolf does what a wolf does but taming him makes him a sweet puppy, a dog.

Same wolf, polar opposite behavior. Molememe btfo.

[Anonymous No.13173362]

Has anyone here read any of his novels?
https://www.amazon.com/God-Atheists-Stefan-Molyneux/dp/B003TVGH54
Look at the full quote on the front, this dumb cunt quoted a review from his creative writing teacher. I'd love to give it a read for comedic purposes but I'm not ready to drop 70 bucks on it

[Anonymous No.13173997]

>>13171840
You can think about raping someone and choose not to do it because it's part of the """""Universally Preferable Behaviour""""" tho

[Anonymous No.13174001]

Moral subjectivity makes no sense. Moral realism is also cringe. Hate this guy but he’s right

[Anonymous No.13174038]

>>13171546
Oh thank god, for a while there I thought maybe that boi raep oops I mean Pedosexuality was wrong!

[Anonymous No.13174044]

>>13170588
Premise 4 is just an accusation of hypocrisy. Because something is required for me to live does not mean my arguments against it can't be valid. That just assumes that living is something that should be valued, which is itself a moral assumption. I can levy an argument against food, for example, by saying that I value plants and animals over humans, and this would be a perfectly valid argument regardless of the fact that my death would result from me not eating food. And further still: if I make this argument against food while continuing to eat food, that would prove nothing further than I am a hypocrite, but would say nothing as to the validity of the argument.

[Anonymous No.13174050]

>>13171546
>The objective part is that morality itself is a social strategy (a phenomenon of feelings+reason in individuals)
what

[Anonymous No.13174253]

>>13170744
Is that a dead cat stuffed with a drone?

[Anonymous No.13174261]

>>13170588
I like Steve.
He's an alright guy.
Would love to have a beer with him.

[Anonymous No.13174294]

>>13171840
I'm a literal philosophy brainlet.
>Where does behaviour come from?
Timeless predetermination by God, which in this argument would be the "predestinator" for the purpose of God's creation not to perish by its own flaws.
>If behaviour is the result of a conscious decision then surely your behaviour depends on your thoughts, no?
There is an instinct behavior pattern, but through thoughts you choose if you submit to your primal instinct or seek something more due to outward influences.
>Then you must agree that in order for us to be responsible for our behaviours we must also be responsible for our thoughts.
We cannot be responsible for out thoughts, which is not the be all end all of consciousness, but more alike suggestions and reflections of an amalgamation of our essence from the physical and metaphysical experience. We can chose to indulge our thoughts or reject them from a morality standpoint that we build over time since our childhood, which is in part our own selection, in part borrowed from the outside.
>If we are responsible for our thoughts then we must be in control of our thoughts.
Our sole responsibility is for ourselves unless additional responsibility is given to us by others and we accept it. We are not responsible for all our thoughts, but those we enact.
>If we are in control of what we think about then we must also be in control of what we do not think about.
Again, we are not any more in control of the flow of all thoughts that pass through us. As for "not" thinking, this is beyond us entirely lest we comply with functioning through ignorance.
>you are not in control of your thoughts and are therefore not responsible for your behaviour
You make too many assumptions and do not separate thought from behavior, which basically makes you an NPC.

[Anonymous No.13174530]

>>13172446
>If you read the book you would see why you're wrong, it doesn't take too long.

I read his book ages ago, it's retarded. Asking me to refute it is like asking someone to refute a religious text, it's so packed full of word salads and non-sequiturs there's no point. If I did bother to refute the book point by point, as people have successfully done more times than I can count over the years, it would just be dozens of paragraphs saying "Actually, no, that statement is self-evidently not correct" on a loop.

[Anonymous No.13174586]

>>13170588
Not an argument.
/thread

[Anonymous No.13174713]

>>13174530
>All my arguments are self evident
>Master in philosophy
I'm not even a molymeme fan, BUT
pick 1

[Anonymous No.13175373]

>>13170588
>universally preferred behaviour.

[Anonymous No.13175390]

>>13172771
AAAAHem.......That's Dr. to you fag.

[Anonymous No.13175399]

>>13170655
>He does champion some good ideas that others won't though
Like what

[Anonymous No.13175426]

Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.13175471]

>>13170921
Summarize. The. Argument.

Nobody is going to read all of Plato because I say "Platonic philosophy is the best. You don't think so? Well, you'd better just read all of Plato's works and other works associated with Platonism." I'm expected to give a summary of what Platonism is and define the terms I'm speaking with.

Now, define UPB so we can actually argue it, or just give up, because you're not going to win any minds over by obstinately demanding that people spend their valuable time reading some bullshit psuedo-philosopher.

Furthermore, I suspect you're not making this argument in good faith. Otherwise you would do the things reasonable of a good faith argument (which I just outlined). More likely, this is some /pol/-tier psyop.